Entertainment desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 5 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 7 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Is anyone out there familiar with the plot line of the film Primal Fear? I had seen the film many years ago, and just watched it again recently. Something about the plotline (a plot hole?) is bugging me, unless I totally missed something. Any takers? Any one think they might be able to help? Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
OK, thanks. Here is the question. I did not want to bother typing all of this (below) if no one out here was going to be able to answer it. At the end of the film, we find out that the Aaron personality never existed this whole time, and that the Roy personality existed this whole time. (Aaron was the meek and mild personality with the stutter. Roy was the violent and mean personality without the stutter.) So, in other words, the true nature of the Edward Norton character was the Roy-nature, not the Aaron-nature. The entire Aaron-nature was completely made up and fictitious -– it was a ploy -- in order to escape culpability for the priest’s murder. So far, so good. I think. So, that means that the Edward Norton character (it doesn't matter if we call him Aaron or Roy) had always lived his life with the Roy-personality, not the Aaron-personality (since the Aaron personality was completely "made up" for the murder trial). Now, in the days / weeks / years prior to the priest's murder, clearly Edward Norton interacted with other people in the world. At the very, very least, he would have interacted with other teenagers in the homeless shelter / church residence. And, presumably, the homeless shelter / church residence had some adults in charge who oversaw the whole operation –- and Edward Norton presumably interacted with them. (The dead priest was not the only one who ran the whole show, he must have had assistants and helpers.) Richard Gere was the greatest defense lawyer in the state. Richard Gere was faced with a death penalty case. And Richard Gere actually honestly believed that his client was innocent. So, considering those three factors, Gere would have done an extensive and thorough investigation of the client – to save him from a guilty plea and to save him from the death penalty. In other words, he would leave no stone unturned -- particularly since he thought that his client was innocent and heightened by the fact that he was a celebrated lawyer with a (winning) reputation to protect. So, wouldn’t Richard Gere's "thorough" investigation include talking to those people who interacted with Edward Norton in the days / weeks / years before the murder? (At the very least, talking with the other homeless teenagers that were part of that church homeless shelter, as well as the adults of the church who oversaw the homeless shelter.) All of the people who Edward Norton interacted with (in his daily life) would only know Edward Norton as having the Roy-personality, not the Aaron personality. And wouldn't at least ONE of these people being interviewed say something to the effect of "Ya, Edward Norton is a sick and twisted and violent guy who does not stutter" … as opposed to "Ya, Edward Norton is a meek and mild guy who stutters and would not hurt a fly" … ? (In effect, saying, "Yes, Edward Norton's personality is such that he certainly has the capability to commit the priest's violent and brutal murder" versus "No, Edward Norton's personality is such that there is no way that he could have committed the priest's violent and brutal murder".) If Edward Norton "made up" the Aaron personality simply for the purposes of the legal system / murder trial, then Edward Norton was living his everyday life with the Roy personality – and he was interacting with others in the world while "using" the Roy personality, not the fake Aaron personality (which did not even exist until after the murder). Obviously, after these interviews and thorough investigation of people who interacted with Edward Norton, Richard Gere would check into these (personality) discrepancies. And, on some level or another, Richard Gere would figure out that the Aaron personality was a charade invented by Edward Norton in order to escape the murder conviction. So, is this a wide, gaping plot hole? Or did I completely miss something in this film? Thanks a lot. This has been bugging me. ( JosephASpadaro 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
Dismas and Carom - thanks, that is helpful. Now, I knew that Aaron was in the sex videos and what you are saying about the priest makes sense (that he would prey on an Aaron, but not on a Roy). (That was going to be one of my next questions to sort out later.) But, you are both saying that the Aaron personality was there all along, even before the murder trial (i.e., not simply fabricated for the murder trial) ... and that the Aaron-personality is what was used on a day-to-day basis? So, the "real" personality was Roy, the fabricated personality was Aaron, and the Edward Norton character used the Aaron personality on a day-to-day basis and "hid" the true Roy personality in his day-to-day living? And then, at the murder trial, this whole fabrication from the past was a nice convenient fit to wiggle out of the murder culpability? Also, then, Edward Norton did not really have multiple personality disorder ... he simply fabricated all of this? Well, I guess that makes sense. But ... wouldn't it seem extremely unlikely that a violent, psychotic brute such as Roy could actually go around day-after-day, year-after-year living his every day life as a wimpy Aaron? (Not to mention, "allowing" himself to be sexually abused?) Wouldn't keeping up that charade simply drive him mad -- since it was the exact opposite of his true personality and self? Also, why create the Aaron personality in the first place and why try to "fool" everybody in the first place? What was his reasoning or motivation? What did he have to gain? It couldn't have been that Edward Norton "knew" that Roy was anti-social and sociopathic ... and that Edward Norton "knew" that this was a bad thing ... and that Edward Norton wanted to fit in with the accepted norms of society? In other words, true sociopaths never see themselves as sociopaths and then try to "fit in" with society's expected behavior. They simply say "to hell" with society ... "I could care less what everyone thinks!" -- the very definition of being a sociopath. And, also ... the fabrication could not have been simply for the free room and board from the priest? Not at the expense of having to endure sexual abuse. A Roy would never stand for that. A Roy would resort to crime, stealing, etc. to satisfy his financial needs before succumbing to the priest's perversions merely for free room and board. So that can't be Roy's motivation, either. I guess I am still somewhat confused. Any other thoughts or input to these points that I have raised? Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Can you tell me who sang the theme song "Bat Masterson"?
Thank you==== Kay
The theme song was written by Havens Wray and Bart Corwin. However it was sung by Bill Lee (singer) IV a/k/a William Lee The Mellomen
heys am i recently got grand theft auto but i cant here some guys talking like the lawyer.are there scenes u cant here or did i install the game badly
is there a software of playing heavily copyrighted material.i got a song from the net.i used vlc it played it but no sound comes out
What would be the best way to find back issues of either Cinefantastique or Creative Screenwriting besides directly buying them from their online stores? I only need access to a few articles, and I have subscription access for some databases. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Entertainment desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 5 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 7 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Is anyone out there familiar with the plot line of the film Primal Fear? I had seen the film many years ago, and just watched it again recently. Something about the plotline (a plot hole?) is bugging me, unless I totally missed something. Any takers? Any one think they might be able to help? Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
OK, thanks. Here is the question. I did not want to bother typing all of this (below) if no one out here was going to be able to answer it. At the end of the film, we find out that the Aaron personality never existed this whole time, and that the Roy personality existed this whole time. (Aaron was the meek and mild personality with the stutter. Roy was the violent and mean personality without the stutter.) So, in other words, the true nature of the Edward Norton character was the Roy-nature, not the Aaron-nature. The entire Aaron-nature was completely made up and fictitious -– it was a ploy -- in order to escape culpability for the priest’s murder. So far, so good. I think. So, that means that the Edward Norton character (it doesn't matter if we call him Aaron or Roy) had always lived his life with the Roy-personality, not the Aaron-personality (since the Aaron personality was completely "made up" for the murder trial). Now, in the days / weeks / years prior to the priest's murder, clearly Edward Norton interacted with other people in the world. At the very, very least, he would have interacted with other teenagers in the homeless shelter / church residence. And, presumably, the homeless shelter / church residence had some adults in charge who oversaw the whole operation –- and Edward Norton presumably interacted with them. (The dead priest was not the only one who ran the whole show, he must have had assistants and helpers.) Richard Gere was the greatest defense lawyer in the state. Richard Gere was faced with a death penalty case. And Richard Gere actually honestly believed that his client was innocent. So, considering those three factors, Gere would have done an extensive and thorough investigation of the client – to save him from a guilty plea and to save him from the death penalty. In other words, he would leave no stone unturned -- particularly since he thought that his client was innocent and heightened by the fact that he was a celebrated lawyer with a (winning) reputation to protect. So, wouldn’t Richard Gere's "thorough" investigation include talking to those people who interacted with Edward Norton in the days / weeks / years before the murder? (At the very least, talking with the other homeless teenagers that were part of that church homeless shelter, as well as the adults of the church who oversaw the homeless shelter.) All of the people who Edward Norton interacted with (in his daily life) would only know Edward Norton as having the Roy-personality, not the Aaron personality. And wouldn't at least ONE of these people being interviewed say something to the effect of "Ya, Edward Norton is a sick and twisted and violent guy who does not stutter" … as opposed to "Ya, Edward Norton is a meek and mild guy who stutters and would not hurt a fly" … ? (In effect, saying, "Yes, Edward Norton's personality is such that he certainly has the capability to commit the priest's violent and brutal murder" versus "No, Edward Norton's personality is such that there is no way that he could have committed the priest's violent and brutal murder".) If Edward Norton "made up" the Aaron personality simply for the purposes of the legal system / murder trial, then Edward Norton was living his everyday life with the Roy personality – and he was interacting with others in the world while "using" the Roy personality, not the fake Aaron personality (which did not even exist until after the murder). Obviously, after these interviews and thorough investigation of people who interacted with Edward Norton, Richard Gere would check into these (personality) discrepancies. And, on some level or another, Richard Gere would figure out that the Aaron personality was a charade invented by Edward Norton in order to escape the murder conviction. So, is this a wide, gaping plot hole? Or did I completely miss something in this film? Thanks a lot. This has been bugging me. ( JosephASpadaro 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
Dismas and Carom - thanks, that is helpful. Now, I knew that Aaron was in the sex videos and what you are saying about the priest makes sense (that he would prey on an Aaron, but not on a Roy). (That was going to be one of my next questions to sort out later.) But, you are both saying that the Aaron personality was there all along, even before the murder trial (i.e., not simply fabricated for the murder trial) ... and that the Aaron-personality is what was used on a day-to-day basis? So, the "real" personality was Roy, the fabricated personality was Aaron, and the Edward Norton character used the Aaron personality on a day-to-day basis and "hid" the true Roy personality in his day-to-day living? And then, at the murder trial, this whole fabrication from the past was a nice convenient fit to wiggle out of the murder culpability? Also, then, Edward Norton did not really have multiple personality disorder ... he simply fabricated all of this? Well, I guess that makes sense. But ... wouldn't it seem extremely unlikely that a violent, psychotic brute such as Roy could actually go around day-after-day, year-after-year living his every day life as a wimpy Aaron? (Not to mention, "allowing" himself to be sexually abused?) Wouldn't keeping up that charade simply drive him mad -- since it was the exact opposite of his true personality and self? Also, why create the Aaron personality in the first place and why try to "fool" everybody in the first place? What was his reasoning or motivation? What did he have to gain? It couldn't have been that Edward Norton "knew" that Roy was anti-social and sociopathic ... and that Edward Norton "knew" that this was a bad thing ... and that Edward Norton wanted to fit in with the accepted norms of society? In other words, true sociopaths never see themselves as sociopaths and then try to "fit in" with society's expected behavior. They simply say "to hell" with society ... "I could care less what everyone thinks!" -- the very definition of being a sociopath. And, also ... the fabrication could not have been simply for the free room and board from the priest? Not at the expense of having to endure sexual abuse. A Roy would never stand for that. A Roy would resort to crime, stealing, etc. to satisfy his financial needs before succumbing to the priest's perversions merely for free room and board. So that can't be Roy's motivation, either. I guess I am still somewhat confused. Any other thoughts or input to these points that I have raised? Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Can you tell me who sang the theme song "Bat Masterson"?
Thank you==== Kay
The theme song was written by Havens Wray and Bart Corwin. However it was sung by Bill Lee (singer) IV a/k/a William Lee The Mellomen
heys am i recently got grand theft auto but i cant here some guys talking like the lawyer.are there scenes u cant here or did i install the game badly
is there a software of playing heavily copyrighted material.i got a song from the net.i used vlc it played it but no sound comes out
What would be the best way to find back issues of either Cinefantastique or Creative Screenwriting besides directly buying them from their online stores? I only need access to a few articles, and I have subscription access for some databases. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)